| Author |
Message |
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
 Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:46 pm McCain, Bush Agree on Torture Ban |
|
| Quote: |
Bush, McCain Reach Deal on 'Cruel, Inhuman' Treatment Ban
Thursday, December 15, 2005
WASHINGTON � President Bush and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., agreed to language Wednesday on a bill to ban U.S. interrogators from using "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" of detainees in the War on Terror.
"We reached this agreement and now we can move forward and the whole world can know as we know that the United States does not permit cruel and inhuman treatment," McCain said Thursday after an Oval Office meeting with the president and Sen. John Warner, R-Va., chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
"We've sent a message to the world that the United States is not like the terrorists," McCain said. "We have no grief for them, but what we are is a nation that upholds values and standards of behavior and treatment of all people, no matter how evil or bad they are. And I think this will help us enormously in winning the war for the hearts and minds of people throughout the world in the War on Terror."
Bush made clear that the language is not about banning torture. That is something the United States already prohibits.
"This government does not torture," he said. "We adhere to the International Convention of Torture, whether it be here at home or abroad."
Bush also thanked McCain, who spent more than five years in a POW camp in Vietnam where he was frequently tortured, for being a leader who upholds American values.
Outside the White House, McCain and Warner said they were confident the language agreed to by the president for the defense authorization bill is a done deal and that loose ends will be tied up in the next 24 hours.
"I'm absolutely confident, Senator, that this McCain legislation, which is landmark legislation very much needed for our nation, will become finalized by our president," Warner said.
The Senate included McCain's provisions in two defense bills, including a must-pass $453 billion spending bill that provides $50 billion for the Iraq war. But the House omitted them from their versions and the bills have stalled.
Still, the language proposed by McCain has received overwhelming support in Congress. Late Wednesday, the House voted 308-122 for a non-binding resolution in support of the Senate-passed ban.
For months the White House has stated concerns that the McCain language goes too far. Administration officials cited doomsday scenarios where a detainee may have information that is critical to the safety of the United States and interrogators may need greater latitude to get prisoners to speak.
The administration was seeking language in the bill that would offer some protection from prosecution for CIA interrogators accused of violating McCain's provision.
"The debate has never really been about torture. There's a domestic law on the books prohibiting torture and we have an international prohibition against torture and the president says as a matter of policy, we don't engage in torture," Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told FOX News.
"The debate has been about, what does it mean to deal in cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment? In some countries, there's stuff on the books to say you can't even insult somebody.
So, we want to simply insure that the American government has the tools necessary to question dangerous terrorists in order to gather information that may protect America from another attack," Gonzales said.
Supporters of the provisions say the extra language is needed to clarify current anti-torture laws in light of abuses at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and allegations of misconduct by U.S. troops at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. McCain said the deal addresses "legitimate concerns raised regarding the rights of interrogators."
The language mimics the military code by saying it will provide CIA and other interrogators with legal counsel and certain protections when they followed orders that a reasonable person would be expected to carry out. Those orders are not to contradict principles agreed to under the Nuremberg Principles developed in 1950, McCain said.
The language also includes a specific statement that those who violate the standards will not be afforded immunity from civil or criminal lawsuits.
"I think it's excellent, I think Sen. McCain was on the right track," Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., told FOX News after he heard about the deal.
But others question whether the U.S. government will have enough leeway to get the information that they need. It is still uncertain if the deal would limit measures such as stress techniques even in interrogations of high-value terrorists who may know about coming attacks.
Some analysts add that limiting "degrading" treatment could mean almost anything. For instance, a female interrogator questioning a Muslim prisoner could be perceived as degrading to the prisoner.
"If you apply it literally, it prohibits detention as such because it is absolutely degrading to be sitting, instead of running around and applying your trade of killing Americans, it is degrading to be sitting in a cell," said David Rivkin, an international law attorney and former Justice Department official.
A deal between the White House and McCain does not mean a deal between the Senate and House.
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, is said to still oppose the ban, though he and Warner were working on "refinements," which deal with legal protections for both military and civilian interrogators.
The protections would guard interrogators from a private suit or prosecution as long as they were following orders and "a reasonable person would think it was a lawful order." That is a standard that already applies to members of the military and would now be extended to civilian interrogators, including the CIA and any contractors.
Hunter said he would hold up completion of one of the two bills that includes the ban unless he got White House assurances that the new rules would still allow "the same high level of effective intelligence gathering" as under current procedures.
But officials said the ban would remain intact in the other bill, the final defense spending measure. After hearing Hunter's remarks, Warner said Thursday that the deal is coming.
"I have full confidence in the president's endorsement of Senator McCain's legislation," Warner said.
At one point, Bush threatened a veto if the ban were included in legislation sent to the president's desk, and Vice President Dick Cheney made an unusual personal appeal to Republican senators to give an exemption to the CIA.
But support in Congress has forced the White House to renegotiate, particularly as Congress tries to get the defense spending bills completed before lawmakers adjourn for the year.
FOX News' Jim Angle, Greg Kelly and Molly Hooper and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
SEARCH
Click here for FOX News RSS Feeds
Advertise on FOX News Channel, FOXNews.com and FOX News Radio
Jobs at FOX News Channel.
Internships at FOX News Channel (Accepting Fall Applications Now).
Terms of use. Privacy Statement. For FOXNews.com comments write to
[email protected]; For FOX News Channel comments write to
[email protected]
� Associated Press. All rights reserved.
Copyright � 2005 ComStock, Inc.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Copyright 2005 FOX News Network, LLC. All rights reserved.
All market data delayed 20 minutes.
|
Hopefully this ban on torture will pass with ease.
|
|
|
CJ Cregg
Commodore
Joined: 05 Oct 2002
Posts: 1254
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:01 pm |
|
Good News, I'm glad the Bush Admin. didn't go ahead with its threat of a Veto. That would have sent the wrong single to the world
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:21 pm |
|
Perhaps they should have called for this before abu ghraib.. not that it would have made much of a difference, or will now. They're obviously too wrapped up in their hypocracy to tell right from left. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:28 pm |
|
| oberon wrote: | | Perhaps they should have called for this before abu ghraib.. not that it would have made much of a difference, or will now. They're obviously too wrapped up in their hypocracy to tell right from left. |
Om, Abu Graihb wasn't torture, and it was an isolated thing. It's not too common for our soldiers and what have you to be doing such things 
And hypocracy? No. Bush is not hypocritical; nor is his administration.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:31 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | oberon wrote: | | Perhaps they should have called for this before abu ghraib.. not that it would have made much of a difference, or will now. They're obviously too wrapped up in their hypocracy to tell right from left. |
Om, Abu Graihb wasn't torture, and it was an isolated thing. |
Please, please, pleeeeeease tell me that you did not just deny torture at Abu Graihb.
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:31 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | oberon wrote: | | Perhaps they should have called for this before abu ghraib.. not that it would have made much of a difference, or will now. They're obviously too wrapped up in their hypocracy to tell right from left. |
Om, Abu Graihb wasn't torture, and it was an isolated thing. It's not too common for our soldiers and what have you to be doing such things
And hypocracy? No. Bush is not hypocritical; nor is his administration. |
So it wouldn't be torture for you to be strewn about naked and humiliated? You must be an exhibitionist. 
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Dec 15, 2005 10:33 pm |
|
That's not torture. That's horrible abuse, and those that did it are getting punished--and rightfully so.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 3:52 am |
|
Definition of torture (from dictionary.com)
| Quote: | tor�ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (t�rchr)
n.
1. a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
2. Excruciating physical or mental pain; agony: the torture of waiting in suspense.
3. Something causing severe pain or anguish. |
From that definition, I think most people will agree that what happened at Abu Graihb was torture.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 9:50 am |
|
I don't believe that Abu Graihb falls under that definition. Nor does Club Gitmo, which we don't even know about the abuses there (I mean, what do you expect the terrorists to say when they escape? "Oh, yeah, they treated us well!" No, noooo).
Abu Graihb was just abuses which they are getting punished for. And rightfully so. We shouldn't be doing such abuses, or torture. But coersive interrogation in this time of terror is necessary (loud music, food deprivation for as many as two days--that kind of thing).
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:14 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | I don't believe that Abu Graihb falls under that definition. Nor does Club Gitmo, which we don't even know about the abuses there (I mean, what do you expect the terrorists to say when they escape? "Oh, yeah, they treated us well!" No, noooo).
Abu Graihb was just abuses which they are getting punished for. And rightfully so. We shouldn't be doing such abuses, or torture. But coersive interrogation in this time of terror is necessary (loud music, food deprivation for as many as two days--that kind of thing). |
Firstly, you do know that all arabs aren't terrorists, right?  Why are you so scared of everything? You live in fear obviously. Always speaking of "terrorists". They must be lurking around every corner! I agree that some measures to extract information are necessary, but they must be excecuted within the confines of the moral and legal boundaries of the US. These people shouldn't be held in foreign countries for the purpose of freedom from the constitution. Can't you just put your pride aside? What happened in Abu Grhaib was torture. That's the reason we aren't holding people inside of the US. Guantanamo bay is the same thing (minus the cruel torturous acts).. that is if you don't consider many innocent people being held indefinitely, forced to sleep on stone floors for months. I don't think this "ban" will be honored. They've violated many other laws, what's to say this one won't be disregarded as well?
Last edited by oberon on Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:17 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:16 am |
|
How do you know RM lives in fear when you don't even know him?.
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:22 am |
|
| Leo Wyatt wrote: | | How do you know RM lives in fear when you don't even know him?. |
By his statements about the 'terrorists', I can see that he lives in fear of being attacked. Although, it really hasn't been an issue here for a while, propaganda keeps him nice and scared. As for you, do you care to reply to anything else that has been typed?
|
|
|
Leo Wyatt
Sweetest Angel
Joined: 25 Feb 2004
Posts: 19045
Location: Investigating A Crime Scene. What did Quark do this time?
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:26 am |
|
Please there are some arabs that are terrorists and does not mean he is afraid. Just cause you don't agree with him..
|
|
|
oberon
Lieutenant, Junior Grade
Joined: 26 Sep 2005
Posts: 106
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 11:32 am |
|
| Leo Wyatt wrote: | | Please there are some arabs that are terrorists and does not mean he is afraid. Just cause you don't agree with him.. |
There are some Americans that are terrorists too, don't you know.  I'm sure he's never fathomed imprisioning them in foreign strongholds. It's called a double standard babe. And I'm not saying that he's scared because I disagree with him, I'm saying it because it's apparent in his posts. Anyway, back to the torture. What are your views regarding this ban? Do you think it will be enforced even though before it was brought to light, these people knew it was wrong and proceeded anyway?
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 7:33 pm |
|
"Where do you get your delusions, laser brain?"
- Princess Leia to Han Solo, Star Wars Episode V
Uh, no. I don't live in fear. As a matter of fact, I feel that I am safe because of the Administration that we have in office--the Bush Administration--which has done everything possible to defend us. As a matter of fact, I hardly ever even think about a terrorist attack, except when I'm analyzing current events and stuff. We have weaknesses, such as the southern border, which can be easily exploited by the terrorists. We still have the chance of attack, and so in order to prevent such a thing from happening again, we must do what we can to protect the American people.
Why do people like you always go down to such arguments, to demean people simply when they disagree with you? I see this kind of thing all the time from radical liberals. Why are you so anti-defense, period? I'm saying that I want security and protection, and you're saying that I live in fear every day?
Uh, no, again. I happen to NOT live in fear--I just live in the real world, not the Land of Oz, like some people
Everything isn't perfect, even though security has improved under this administration. We haven't had a terrorist attack since 9/11, have we?
And OF COURSE I know that all Muslims aren't terrorists. Heck, you'd be ABSOLUTELY DUMB to think that were so--so for you to imply that I believe that they all are is absolutely RIDICULOUS. As a matter of fact, I know that it's a SMAAAAALLL minority of Muslims that are members of terrorist actions, and that there are terrorists of other kind, such as Timothy McVe(sp?), Chechnian rebels, and radical anti-abortion people. I'm not dumb.
Next, if anyone's listening to propoganda, it's clearly you. I mean, do you not read the things you say? I'm even more open-minded than you
And finally, at Gitmo they get all sorts of nice things that even OUR PRISONERS don't get. There are honorable innocents that have come out and said that they were treated nicely.  --innocents...saying that they were... TREATED NICELY at Gitmo? Who woulda thought!?
Oh, yes. They get prayer rugs. They get free Korans. They get a variety of other things and are treated nicely overall at what Rush calls "Club Gitmo." I happen to not really believe in "Club Gitmo" like the resort he acts like it is (well, he doesn't quite act like it's a full-fledged resort, but you know what I mean--or at least, if you are smart you should), but I do believe that it's not nearly as bad of a place as the left portrays it. Maybe there are some abuses there, but they're very rare and isolated.
And keep in mind that those held at Gitmo were CAUGHT IN THE BATTLEFIELD in either Iraq or Afgahnistan. It's not like they were at a shopping mall and told, "Hey, you, yeah, you're coming with us to prison." No. They were CAUGHT IN THE FIELD OF ACTION, with reasonable suspiscion. But we have to ignore that, don't we?
On this ban, I don't know. I haven't decided. Torture I oppose, but how far does the term "torture" go? Does it mean that we can't use any form of coersive interrogation, such as loud music and sleep deprivation and no food for, say, two days? (not all of them in two days, of course ) There are certain things that we have to do to save lives. But hurting them or doing other acts of torture, or abuses like Abu Graihb? No; we shouldn't be doing such things.
If it doesn't go too far, then I support this ban. But if it doesn't even allow for any form of coersive interrogation, then I oppose it.
What is permissable for interrogations for getting information from terrorists that might have information about an attack that may happen? We should really know.
Finally, though, no law has been broken. The Geneva Convention doesn't apply to terrorists and other armed, un-uniformed combatants that don't represent the military of a state. Not a single law has been broken. Not as far as I know
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Fri Dec 16, 2005 8:43 pm |
|
Do you both like posting in WN? Yes? Then leave the personal comments out. RM, this is your only warning, you very well know the rules. Oberon, refer to the WN rules.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
webtaz99
Commodore
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 1229
Location: The Other Side
|
| Mon Dec 19, 2005 8:51 am |
|
"Torture" involves physical harm. "Coercion" does not.
Professional interegators have known for decades that physical torture is unreliable and ineffective. That's why they haven't used it in decades.
-------signature-------
"History is made at night! Character is who you are in the dark." (Lord John Whorfin)
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
